171
While some Republicans are decrying this, do not forget that Donald Trump had Nick Fuentes at Mar-A-Lago (with Kanye)
These groups don't even give a shit about their conference. These articles about the controversy are the entire reason they do this. I'd say 'stop giving them exactly what they want ever time they do this', but that will never happen.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=wCl33v5969M
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I've heard plenty from Republicans that also dislike this. The GOP is absolutely broken into two groups and they hate each other. At some point one side will form a third party or just disappear.
They hate each other right up until election day when they all fall in line together.
Don't let Republican hand-wringing over other Republicans fool you. They still have a common enemy to unite them- the fear of anyone except Republicans having power.
I mean I understand the truth in this but look at the Georgia results in 2020. Biden won the state even though a lot of other Republicans got more votes than Trump. There wasn't a down ticket effect for democrats, a lot of Republicans just left it blank instead of voting for Trump.
I'm not sure about other states, I live in Georgia so i was hyperaware about what was happening here.
The other way to look at that is that it took a man as shockingly vile as Trump to make them reconsider even one specific R for the presidency, but they still voted R the rest of the way down. Don't underestimate Republican commitment to voting Republican.
Also I think Biden's win in Georgia can be attributed more to increased voter turnout than a few Rs declining to vote for Trump.
Yeah I brought in 6 new voters between the presidential and the runoffs for Warnock! I felt so useful.
That is pretty awesome. Getting more people to partiipcate matters more than almost anything else at this point.
Why does he still look like he's in prep school?
There's a painting of a 90-year-old Dachau camp guard aging in his attic, I just know it.
Maybe it has something to do with this.
https://www.newsweek.com/qanon-shaman-threatens-expose-false-prophet-republican-event-1812085
Here is one of Fuentes quotes: "I want a 16-year-old who is untouched, untouched, pristine, untouched, not corrupted, innocent,"
well, now i'm convinced that Fuentes met Dorian Grey in a Weimar Berlin gay bar, killed him, and stole his painting because the only thing in the article that defies belief is that Fuentes is 32.
They know who their supporters are.
The GOP aren't sending their best
They are though, and that's what's scary
This is a reference to former president Donald Trump saying most Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7764650-when-mexico-sends-its-people-they-re-not-sending-their-best
I know, but I still stand by what I said
They are Nazis.
Yes, give this shit stain more publicity, allow these clowns make careers on your outrage.
Are you suggesting Nick Fuentes profits off this post? Honestly, I don't know where people like Nick get their money, but it's not from me and it's not from this post.
It seems to me multiple groups in the Republican party, and the de facto leader of the party are the ones promoting him.
Shit stain says clown shit
Internet mocks it
So someone invites him to speak and pays him decent money for this vomit.
Y'all get on here and generate engagement by decrying him and saying how outraged you are, how bad he is.
He gets bigger gig for more money
Repeat.
He is on Joe Rogan...
now he is a household name with patron donations from other degenerates and speaking fees
This business model has been around for a while but Jordan Peterson really showed every one how to do it properly.
And yet, people still falling it for it.
"TaTe Iz RaPisT" maybe so but that's a criminal matter, y'all constantly clicking on articles with his name is generating him support and revenue. Fucking STOP.
Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Consider the viewpoint in this youtube video. It is pretty long. The whole series is really good. This one is one of the last ones, I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCl33v5969M
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=wCl33v5969M
https://piped.video/watch?v=wCl33v5969M
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
How about you summarize the point you are trying tot make so every one can understand what you are saying instead of assigning homework to online strangers while likely promoting somebody's "influencer" career
That's fair-- I take the same stance usually-- I really should have just done that from the get go, huh?
Your response above-- the one I replied to, is also a "win state" for bigots. They win when you ignore them, and when you give them attention. The video goes on to point out that framing the scenario like you are, where the battlefield is a war over attention, that minorities are being treated as tools or pieces on a board, and both sides are engaging in bigotry.
My summary sucks, but maybe it's enough to get you to take a look?
How's clicking on articles about a bigot and showing your outrage on social media actually combat the bad actor?
I am all about improving the tactics but I don't see this one as viable? What is the advice?
I can't watch the video for you, friend. If you're curious, watch it. If you're not, then don't.
Sounds like you are more interested in promoting the video than engaging in discussion at hand tbh
I don't see any reason why I should transcribe a video for you, when it's freely available to watch at your leisure. I find the video series insightful when it comes to understanding and combatting bigotry and those that champion it-- and for sure, you may not. I only wanted to bring it to your attention because it directly applies to the discussion, and assuming your end goal is combatting bigotry, you might be interested in knowing that the way you're going about it isn't likely to work.
the video provides context for the conversation. if you're not interested in doing the work in order to participate, fine, but demanding that they transcribe possibly thousands of words just because you refuse to watch the video isn't reasonable.
If someone can't express a thesis in a few sentences, I am questioning their ability to do critical analysis.
That's lazy, and frankly, unprofessional way to conduct an online discussion.
they have no obligation to do exceed to your entitled demands, and this is not a "profession" but a casual conversation. again, if you refuse to make the effort to do what's required to participate in it, then that is your choice. don't complain when others won't do that work for you.
grow up.
Well I'm here to say f*** Nick Fuentes and f*** anybody who hosts him.
Why don't you be the change you want to see in this world, and stop contributing to this post.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
171 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3570 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS